If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Cruz had to say Nicks is the #1. that's Cruzs' way imo. he pays the proper respect to players in front of him so to speak besides he doesn't want to be responsible for any future controversy especially with Nicks and the Giants.

Cruz will let it all play out on the field. he got paid like a #1 that's all that matters.

sigpic

Comment

"We've been undervalued." is spoken in the past tense. So I assume he's talking about in the past slot receivers in general. The "We" lets you know he is not specifically talking about himself, but about the position in general.

Comment

I don't agree with that. I thought Cruz was worth less money than Nicks and most top tier #1s because he wasn't the focus of the defense when Nicks was on the field, rather he was the benefactor of the double coverage that Nicks drew.

However, if Cruz was putting up those same stats and teams were double teaming him and leaving Nicks with one-on -one coverage at the #1 then he should get #1 money, even though he play's the slot role.

Production is the ultimate goal, but you have to factor in how you got your numbers, and how teams were playing you, and how much of your production is a byproduct of the offense that you are in.

Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

Comment

Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

Comment

I don't agree with that. I thought Cruz was worth less money than Nicks and most top tier #1s because he wasn't the focus of the defense when Nicks was on the field, rather he was the benefactor of the double coverage that Nicks drew.

However, if Cruz was putting up those same stats and teams were double teaming him and leaving Nicks with one-on -one coverage at the #1 then he should get #1 money, even though he play's the slot role.

Production is the ultimate goal, but you have to factor in how you got your numbers, and how teams were playing you, and how much of your production is a byproduct of the offense that you are in.

That argument could have worked prior to 2012.. Last season Nicks was healthy for maybe two games tops, Cruz was the opposing defenses primary concern all season and he still had a great season.
I'm willing to bet a bargaining chip used by Cruz's agent the past few months was that he had a solid season without the help of a healthy Nicks.

Comment

That argument could have worked prior to 2012.. Last season Nicks was healthy for maybe two games tops, Cruz was the opposing defenses primary concern all season and he still had a great season.
I'm willing to bet a bargaining chip used by Cruz's agent the past few months was that he had a solid season without the help of a healthy Nicks.

I remember the games when Nicks was not on the field at all and for at least 2 of them Cruz was MIA, not what you want if you are claiming you are the goods.

Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

Comment

That argument could have worked prior to 2012.. Last season Nicks was healthy for maybe two games tops, Cruz was the opposing defenses primary concern all season and he still had a great season.
I'm willing to bet a bargaining chip used by Cruz's agent the past few months was that he had a solid season without the help of a healthy Nicks.

The difference is the position they play. By where Cruz is aligned he is inherently a more difficult guy to cover with a two way go. So he often is doubled no matter who else is on the field at receiver. But that is true for most slot receivers. The really good ones still get open.

Nicks on the other hand does not demand double coverage based on where he lines up, but instead by how good he is.

Comment

Two games out of 16? I also recall the whole offense going MIA for a few weeks.
It's evident both players help each other on the field.

I get it now. You think Cruz is as good as Nicks. No way, no how.

Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

Comment

I don't agree with that. I thought Cruz was worth less money than Nicks and most top tier #1s because he wasn't the focus of the defense when Nicks was on the field, rather he was the benefactor of the double coverage that Nicks drew.

However, if Cruz was putting up those same stats and teams were double teaming him and leaving Nicks with one-on -one coverage at the #1 then he should get #1 money, even though he play's the slot role.

Production is the ultimate goal, but you have to factor in how you got your numbers, and how teams were playing you, and how much of your production is a byproduct of the offense that you are in.

I can agree with that rationale - but when has that happened?

Comment

Is that far fetched to think? The past two seasons would agree with that assessment. I have always felt Nicks is the better player, but we have to factor in injuries. And Cruz has him beat by a Country mile.

Comment

Is that far fetched to think? The past two seasons would agree with that assessment. I have always felt Nicks is the better player, but we have to factor in injuries. And Cruz has him beat by a Country mile.

Did you watch the 2011 playoffs? You know the games that count the most.

Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.